get_server_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it opens no document, starts no Word, contains no path/document/user name, and is safe to paste into a bug report. This goes well beyond the annotation and gives an agent confidence about side-effect-free execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every clause adds information, starting with the core purpose and then detailing return contents and safety properties. It is slightly long, but the length is justified given the breadth of environment information reported.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool reports, its operational constraints, and its intended use. Since an output schema exists, return-values need no further description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear, specific verb ('Report') and resource ('this server's build and environment'), and enumerates exactly what is included: version, tool surface, packs, startup decision, Word tier, sandboxing, OS/Python, update-check. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the document-centric sibling tools such as get_document_info and diagnose_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it needs no document, opens no file, and is paste-safe for bug reports. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the unique server-info scope makes the intended use easy to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.